Possessives within and beyond NP 213
Thus, semantically, ezafe-2 possessors in Tatar are more akin to attributive adjectives
in Russian, such as sosedskij ‘neighbour-like’, starušečij ‘old woman-like’, košačij ‘feline’,
than to (adjectival) possessives, such as sosedkin ‘neighbour’s’, staruxin ‘old woman’s’,
koškin ‘cat’s’ (cf. Trugman 2007; Babyonyshev 1997: 200–204; Pereltsvaig 2007b: 79–80)
or argumental genitives such as sosedki ‘of neighbour’, staruxi ‘of old woman’, koški ‘o f
cat’. The semantic parallelism between ezafe-2 possessors and attributive adjectives is
further highlighted by the fact that the interpretation of ezafe-2 possessors is depen-
dent on encyclopedic knowledge. For instance, in (41) below, the ezafe-2 possessor can
be interpreted as the author of the drawing or as the intended recipient. In the former
case, the phrase means a ‘drawing of the type drawn by children (i.e. simple shapes,
stickmen, etc.)’. In the latter case, it means a ‘drawing of the type drawn for children
(e.g. illustration for a children’s book, but not a cubist drawing)’. We must stress, how-
ever, that the interpretations of ezafe-2 possessors are never those of Agent or Goal
argument, but are simply similar to the interpretations that these arguments receive.
(41) bala-lar räsem-e
child-pl drawing-3
‘(the) children’s drawing’
The non-thematic (but rather encyclopedic-based) nature of ezafe-2 possessor inter-
pretations is highlighted by the contrast between (41) and the following examples:
(42) a. bala-lar kitab-ı
child-pl book-3
‘(the) children’s book’
b. bala(-lar) fotografijä-se
hild(-pl) photo-3
‘(the) child(ren)’s photo’
While the ezafe-2 possessor in all three examples is the same, it is interpreted differ-
ently. Unlike (41), where balalar ‘children’ is interpreted as the prototypical creator or
the intended audience, as discussed above, in (42a) it receives the “intended audience”
interpretation, whereas in (42b) it can be interpreted as the content of the photo (i.e.
‘a photo of the type that depicts children’, such as the type of photo of their children
that parents send to relatives or post on Facebook, where children are smiling, posing,
dressed up nicely etc.). Since it is hard to imagine a typical style of photos taken by
children, this example does not naturally receive the interpretation where the children
are the authors rather than the subject-matter of the photo. Going back to (39) above,
xatın ‘woman’ here means ‘a type [of clothing] made for a woman, or typically worn
by a woman’. A cross-dressing male may own such a garment, as it need not belong
to a woman. Once again, the ezafe-2 possessor expresses modification or property
description rather than possession by an individual. Considerations of prototypicality
exclude the interpretation of the ezafe-2 possessor in this example as denoting ‘a type